The miserable failure thing was the result of a 'google bomb'. In short, it happened as a result of a group of people manipulating page rank by posting the link on many webpages, some of which were themselves highly ranked. That resulted in google's (automated) page rank process in highly associating the words 'miserable failure' with the linked page, Bush's bio.
Well, because taxation reduces disposible income (which is why we all hate it :)), and people spend part of their disposible income and save part of it.
It some one saves 25% of their posttax income, and spends 75% of it, we can increase consumption by taxing them (taking part of both the 25% and 75%) and devoting it 100% to spending. It basically causes an artificial change in what economists call the marginal propensity to consume (though my old econ prof would probably have shot me if I ever phrased it that way in class). The problem is that if your spending doesn't go to form capital, it could be more effectively used in the private sector (so, hole digging out, roads arguably in). Also, government spending tends to spur on inflation.
You do have a good point. New Orleans is not a ghost town. I was just there last week for Thanksgiving. Mind you, a lot of people have moved elsewhere, but it isn't like all the people who evacuated have just stayed away. Nobody has a real good number how many people there are in the city.
Not to mention that charity is one of the absolute BEST trauma hospitals in America, and they are a teaching hospital. If you are EVER in a situation where you need an ER doc, hope you get one who studied at charity.
Also, as the name says, it is a CHARITY hospital. Not just as in they give away charity care to people who need it, but in that it is largely unwritten by private charity. Yes, they do get reimbursed by medicaid, etc, but so do private hospitals.
Keynes is right in the short run. The classical model is right in the long time. Short term recessions are caused by lag time between drops in consumption and corresponding deflation. In the long term, firms adjust their production and price schemes to match demand (so goods don't just sit on the shelf, unsold, costing money). How long term the short term is seems to be the matter of debate. The great society programs stimulated demand which had been lacking for at least five years at the time the programs were instituted, but they went on too long and caused inflation when already recovered demanded was continually stimulated. There is no catch-all, magic formula for economics. It is all about trade offs. There are some things you definitely don't want to do (inflationary policies that also encourage unemployment), but there are a number of relationships in econ where you can have a lot of either one of two things, and not both.
Is it there(sic) job to tell me, based upon their grant source, how to live my life or run my business????? I fail to understand your point, I guess. Are you saying that by choosing to not invest in tobacco stocks they are telling you how to live? If that is it, then I respond this way. If they didn't invest in grocery stores, would they be telling you not to eat? No company has a right to equity capital. It is entirely the investors' right to decide, based on any metric, which companies they choose to invest in.
11/26/2005 2:49:21 PM PST
· 7 of 9 durh
Yeah, the civil rights movement of the 60s and 70s (i.e. 35 years ago) was such a huge leap backward. *eye roll* I think 98% of people out there, even in our party would agree that when laws and the government enforce unfair treatment of certain citizen, it is both in contradiction of our shared ideals as Americans, and the tenants of a functioning free trade system. Now, affirmative action is a much more recent movement which seeks to do the same thing, but in the opposite direction. That I disagree with.
He's right that it is each parent's responsibility to control what their children do and don't have access to. It isn't the government's job to decide what our children are and aren't allowed to have any more than it is the government's job to decide what TV I can and can't watch. However, you certainly can't let everyone pick his or her own morals without bounds. That's why we have laws. I'm not convinced that you have to be Christian to be a good person. I'm not convinced that all Christians are good people.
My reading seems to be different. I didn't pick up any mention of the victims being gang members, just black.
Either way, the problem with just letting them shoot it out is the collateral damage. They will shoot it out on the streets and innocents will get killed. Family members of gang members, who don't have any power over their stupid relative's behavoir, will get cut up in retalitation crimes. No, the way to deal with these people is NOT to surrender the streets.
11/25/2005 9:06:56 PM PST
· 5 of 5 durh
to Nasty McPhilthy
Not with my tax dollars? I don't give a s**t. If it isn't government propaganda forced down my throat by law and I don't have to pay for it, I don't care.
Freedom of speech protects everyone, even the loons I don't want to listen to. That ensures that if one day, I'm the loon, I don't get thrown in a camp. Let them pay for all the advertising they want to buy.
Nobody should live in flat areas because of tornados. No one should live in the mountains because of snow storms and mud slides. No one should live in California because of earthquakes. No one should live in the west because of droughts. There were floods near Dallas last year, Texas must not be safe either!
On a less sarcastic note, I'm in New Orleans right now (well, technically I'm in the 'burbs right now, but I've been in and out of the city all week). Yeah, some infrastructure is a little messed up, but it isn't like the city was leveled. 95% of things are still standing. If you think people will just abandon a major city (major port, center of historical importance, great tourist town, etc) because of a couple of sections (i.e. the ninth ward) are messed up and everybody else might have to change out some carpet/windows, you are out of your mind.
What is the argument that it is? I've never heard one, but people seem to think that there are actually people out there in favor of using fetuses, etc. Everyone I know who works with stem cell programs uses adult stem cells or umbilical stem cells.